semantic_search_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It implies a read-only search operation and mentions results are expanded from the canonical graph, but does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies data, whether it depends on embeddings being synced, or any other behavioral constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is well-structured and front-loads the main action, though the phrase 'derived' and 'expanded' could be more precise without adding length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is too brief to provide complete context. It lacks parameter explanations, usage scenarios, relationship to sibling tools, and details about the output schema. For a tool with no annotations and minimal schema descriptions, this is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no descriptions for parameters, and the description does not compensate by explaining project_id, query, or limit. It mentions 'project embeddings' but does not clarify how parameters map to the search behavior, leaving the meaning of each parameter ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (semantic search) and subject (derived project embeddings), and mentions the outcome (expanded from canonical graph). It is specific enough to convey the tool's primary function, though it could be slightly more detailed about what 'expanded' means.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as semantic_search_project_tool, get_vector_status, or other search-related tools. There is no indication of appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.